Subscribe To No Dhimmitude

Friday, May 20, 2011

Molly Norris kicked off the first Everybody Draw Mohammed, and since then she's been on the run from Muslims who threaten to kill her. Well, hello, Molly. Here's my latest photo of Mohammed. I can't draw very well, but I can use my Brownie as well as anyone.This is Mohammed. As you might guess, he is a homosexual.

Islam is a religion of homosexuals. Most of us are fine with that. We feel that it is good to celebrate Mohammed's sexual diversity, and we are happy to see him here getting in touch with his feminine side as he shows other Muslims how they should behave if they want to be proper imitators of Mohammed, the perfect model for all Muslim men.

And you all thought I would be negative. Sheesh. Homohammed. I think it's just right. I celebrate the difference.

I was one of the most powerful men in the world.Rich, famous, wealthy, fabulously charming, and pretty smart, if I say so myselfJust one little mistake. Who'd a thought they'd care about it?And it all went toot sweet.I mean, I was a shoo-in for the job. And now look at me.I'm a charmer. I'm a seducer. I'm a fun kinda guy.I could have been the king of France.And if the French people are as only half as smart as I, then I might still be. One never knows.Maybe I'll find a new girlfriend and start over.I can start now.My mind is abuzz with fine ideas for a socialist take-over of the whole worldLike Obama, I'll go for the youth vote and promise them anything. They will believe.I'll call it "Hope and Stuff."I am so pretty. I am so witty. So pretty and witty and -- hey!I think I have an idea! You won't know if you like it or not unless you try it.And if I can't be the king of France, I say to you: I will be the Queen of Riker's Island.Ooh la la.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Is it OK to be a violent rapist if one is a socialist European neo-feudalist princeling and one is falsely accused by a lying hotel maid without a government position? Well, the hotel maid is certainly guilty of this problem for the socialist until she is proven innocent of lying. Just look at the socialist reaction.

DSK is innocent until proven guilty. One cannot rule out a setup as a smear campaign against him had started in french press close to Sarko

And here we see the depth of thought that constitutes Left brilliance:

You may disagree with my analogy from the rape that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is now accused of and the way that the 5 Major Banks in our nation, including Goldman Sachs are all deeply guilty of 'Raping' their own nation, and violating and ruining the lives of millions of people, but I fail to see the difference. Home invasions by these Bankers without due process of law, has now become perfectly acceptable in our nation. That is a violation, if ever there was one.

Obviously, even the most talented politician can run afoul of ethics and get involved in sexual scandals. Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and others come to mind. Clearly, Spitzer was seeking sexual gratification from someone not his wife. We do not know if Strauss-Kahn did have sex with a maid, whether he was set up, whether it was consensual if it occurred, or whether he has a really dark side that should preclude him from ever holding higher office. Nor do we know just how Spitzer's every move was watched and described before his arrest, just weeks after he made it his goal to clean up Wall Street frauds.

I do not normally subscribe to conspiracy theories, even when many of them seem to come true (See generally, the UK's growing fiasco over the Iraq Invasion set up)

The forced sexual abuse of anyone is unacceptable, whether it is priest on child or adult on adult. We should keep an open mind, however, that not all the facts are out, and many on Wall Street had billions and trillions of reasons to fear and loathe Monsieur Strauss-Kahn.

Fellow Socialists increasingly defended Strauss-Kahn, citing contradictions in the investigation, and pledged to stick to the campaign calendar.

"His close friends cannot believe that he is guilty," said Socialist politician and friend Jean Christophe Cambadelis.

[....]

"Perhaps this affair will unravel very quickly, if we learn that there is in the end no serious charge and that what was said by this woman was not true, and we all wish for this," former Socialist Party boss Francois Hollande said on Canal-Plus television. "To commit an act of such seriousness, this does not resemble the man I know."

Monday, May 16, 2011

There was a time in South Africa when damned near every White guy you could meet was a full-blown racist. You could have tortured those people and they would never have given in to save themselves. And then, one day later, suddenly none of them had ever been racist at all, they all knowing that Mandela was a great guy and that he should obviously be the nation's leader. To bring up the unpleasant past was a dirty and nasty thing only a particularly rotten guy would do. Yes, there were still some racists around, but they were few and marginal. Things had changed, and all was well in a multi-multi nation of now.

Those who live like that in the mind are people you want to be around. They are social. They are what a nation needs to be successful and at peace. They are conformists and quiet and committed to little beyond their own lives and private doings. They are insane when the government is insane; they are loving and wonderful when the government leaves them alone to be themselves. Whatever the flavour of the month is, that's what they are too. It is to the good. They aren't wild and rebellious and crazy. They say what others say, believe what their friends believe, and they just live their lives. Just like Obama supporters. Conformity Hippies.

I have always believed.

All good people know.

Only bad people believe.

And tomorrow, when the game changes, all will be well again in a whole different way. Spencer will be everyone's hero. No one will have ever believed that Islam is a religion of peace. Shari'a will be known by all right-thinking people to be a seventh century tribal code inflamed by ethnicity, as E.O. Wilson puts it so nicely. We will all know this. Yes, there will be some dinosaurs left over who don't know that things have changed, but they will be few and marginal. Most people will believe what most people believe. This will be to the good.

Meanwhile, there will be those sons of Walker who don't get along with the norm. There will be those who always demand and criticise and argue and fight. Same people, different issues.

A leftard social scientist, Joanna Bourke, writes in An Intimate History of Killing, that in combat only 15 per cent of men will ever effectively fire their weapons at the enemy. Most will do aid work, loading rifles, spotting, et c. But they will not, unless directly commanded and supervised, fire their weapons of their own accord, and even then, they shut their eyes and fire at random. Most people are not killers. They just want to live and let live. So I look at the 15 per cent and I ask if they are the few who ever do much of anything of their own accord. How many Americans actually do anything of their own direct volition? Maybe 15 per cent. Those are the ones who start businesses, who lead others, who make things happen. The rest of us help out. This is to the good, I think.

I think, further, that the 15 per cent of doers is split between 7 and 8 per cent, some being for, the rest being against, or for something else. Thus, one needs to convince about one per cent of the 8 per cent of the leaders of anything to switch. One won't change that which works, regardless of how poorly, unless there is a great incentive to do so. Change is not welcome in most activities. One per cent of 15 per cent of America's vital thinkers and actors is many indeed, and they have little reason to abandon careers and lives that work already. They believe, and to change to some new idea is to say to themselves that what they have always believed before is wrong, that they were wrong, that their lives were wrong. What are the odds?

Muslims have it made in the West. They have it ready-made. All Muslims already believe in Islam, and to follow Islam is simple and right for a Muslim. Why would they change? Why would they rebel against everything they have always believed? what their families and fellows have always believed? what all good people among them believe? That 15 per cent of activist men and women who do at all will do while the rest help out. In its own perverse way, this is to the good. It provides whatever stability there is in Islam. Without it there would be total chaos and destruction of all that they know and value. Where's the incentive? It doesn't come from the West. Who among us would really like Ali Sinas by the millions? Who would like a man who rebels against everything his culture values? Imagine millions of such rebels. The world as we know it would fall apart and there would be terrible catastrophes everywhere. As much as we might hate Islam, we would not like chaos better. In effect, we would prefer occasional jihadi violence to chaos in the Muslim world. We can control the occasional jihadi bomber; we can do nothing but suffer if the Muslim world collapses into anarchy. To like that idea is to be a particularly nasty and inhuman kind of person, which nearly no one is. Most of us just want to get along and live privately. Thus we have conformity hippies echoing George W. Bush claiming Islam is a religion of peace. We say what others say because we don't like the idea of being strange or evil.

Personally, I don't mind being thought of as strange or evil. I do notice, though, that I don't get invited out a lot. Free thinkers are not popular for a good reason. They think freely. Very few people like that in a man. If most people were outsiders, the world would collapse. So, I find myself concluding here, which will offend some, that the jihadis are doing exactly the right thing within the context of their lives. If we understand that and learn to accept it and accept ourselves as opposed to our own who wish to shuffle along quietly to the grave, then we might be able to accommodate our lives as well to the general need to get along. Some men will act, and some will help out. Most will be against it till most are for it. When things flip, the rebel will still be a rebel. Nothing changes. I find it hard to blame others for conforming. I like it. It makes my life easier in most ways. So long as only a very few involve themselves in actual fighting, all is more or less OK. When things go crazy, crazy people will rise to the top. When order is restored, crazy people at the top will find themselves being shot at the post. Such is life. Better to see it for what it is and learn to deal with it effectively.

Most people will not be against jihad till most people are against jihad. Then it will be normal. Till then, ask just what's in it for you to be crazy and antisocial. Nothing good for most. For some, it's the cat's meow.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Judgement Day seems better. The thing is, both are right for this story about the reaction to the killing of Osama bin Laden by American government forces. I had to pick one. I did. I live with it.

My choice of headline here is not a deep moral issue, and no ones life is hanging in the balance over it. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be any large number of people going hysterical over my slagging of women and homosexuals and leftards in general in my slippery use of the term "she-males." There is a current of thought that can articulate a cogent argument that I am any number of evil kinds of man for writing that. There is a whole and deep and widespread area of contemporary thought that would condemn me as a fascist, racist, homophobic reactionary killer of brown people because I use the term "she-males." It's a judgement call on their parts, and because they carve up reality for themselves that very way and demand we follow their religious creeds, they can be "right." No argument on my part will make them change their thinking, and I don't care. I'm not arguing. It's a judgement call.

I met a man once who proudly told me he had just been promoted to Western Regional Sales Manager of a widget company in South Bend, Indiana. He told me a bit about his job and his new responsibilities. Frankly, I was baffled. It seemed so complicated I couldn't begin to grasp what he was on about. He didn't go into the details, just the outline. It seemed like a pretty fine job to me. Exciting and remunerative and stylish. I might know all there is to know about running the U.S. government from top to bottom, how to make America the finest nation on earth, how to usher in world peace, and how to halt injustice, but that fellow's job was way beyond my talents. That would be like nearly everyone's job. I haven't got a clue, and it would take me years to work my way into such things to begin to get good enough to make it to the top on anything I might even be good at. But the world economic order? No problem. Seriously, I can do as well as the head of the IMF as the guy arrested for attempted rape in New York City a few days ago. As Kaiser Wilhelm (I think) once said, "Any fool can do this job." Proof? We have Obama as president. Further proof? See below:

"Dhimmitude in Germany: Judge files complaint against Merkel for being glad that OBL is dead."

Hamburg judge Heinz Uthmann wants Angela Merkel to shut up and play the dhimmi, as he does. "Judge Files Complaint against Merkel over Bin Laden Comments," from Spiegel, May 6 2011.

A Hamburg judge has filed a criminal complaint against Chancellor Angela Merkel for "endorsing a crime" after she stated she was "glad" that Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces. Meanwhile a new poll reveals that a majority of Germans do not see the terrorist's death as a reason to celebrate.

Schadenfreude, the enjoyment of others' suffering, may be a famously German concept, but it is apparently not a feeling that many Germans aspire to. The political and public fallout following Chancellor Angela Merkel's statement on Monday that she was "glad" Osama bin Laden had been killed was among the most hotly debated topics in the German media this week.

Politicians, including those within her own center-right coalition, said that no death was cause for celebration, and reproved the remark as un-Christian and vengeful.

But Hamburg judge Heinz Uthmann went even further. He alleges that the chancellor's statement was nothing short of illegal, and filed a criminal complaint against Merkel midweek, the daily Hamburger Morgenpost reported Friday.

"I am a law-abiding citizen and as a judge, sworn to justice and law," the 54-year-old told the paper, adding that Merkel's words were "tacky and undignified."

In his two-page document, Uthmann, a judge for 21 years, cites section 140 of the German Criminal Code, which forbids the "rewarding and approving" of crimes. In this case, Merkel endorsed a "homicide," Uthmann claimed. The violation is punishable by up to three years' imprisonment or a fine....

If any German court takes this seriously, Germany can be pronounced dead.

It's a judgement call. It's based on what ones associates agree with in general. It doesn't have to be good or bad, it has only to keep all things from falling apart, which is easy enough to do so long as one does very little: the guy in Indiana is going to keep things going no matter what so long as I don't interfere with his job. Making pronouncements about the killing of bin Laden is pretty cheap, like deciding the headline of this blog post.

So long as one stays within the realm of the normative, whatever that might be, one is pretty much safe from all harm. If one has a basket of ideas shared by all others one knows, then so long as one doesn't include anything too strange, there is no foul. I call leftards who carry the same intellectual goods in the same baskets and who admire each others goodies as Conformity Hippies. They share with each other the things they all have, and that's the depth and breadth of it. Amusingly, they call it "daring" and "revolutionary." There's no judgement beyond which clichés to haul out of the basket.

Osama bin Laden's death prompted celebrations in the US but elsewhere the response has been more sceptical.

Osama bin Laden - the architect of 9/11 and for ten years the world's most wanted terrorist – is hailed as a martyr in some parts of the world. Photograph: Banaras Khan/AFP/Getty Images

Expert commentators Colonel Tim Collins, former Royal Irish Regiment commander and counterinsurgency expert, AC Grayling, professor of philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London, Mona Siddiqui, professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Glasgow, and Giles Fraser, Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral give their views on the killing of Osama bin Laden.

1 Do you have any concerns over how the operation was handled?

AG I have concerns over the fact that it seems Osama bin Laden was shot out of hand rather than arrested and put on trial. The US and its Nato allies are meant to stand for due process in law and proper legal procedures. For no doubt very justifiable, pragmatic reasons, it was just an assassination.

TC No. It's achieved its aims so it was a successful mission.

MS Difficult to know because the story keeps changing.

GF It looks more and more like an assassination. So yes, it concerns me. They didn't want to see the rule of law being followed and Bin Laden put on trial.

2 Was Bin Laden a legitimate target for execution?

AG He was certainly a legitimate target for arrest and trial and I have no doubt that the pragmatists everywhere will say that if he had been put on trial it would have been a focus for terrorism and martyrdom and arrests. From the practical point of view you can understand the motivation but it's very hard to excuse it.

TC You have the most dangerous man in the world and the expectation that he is unlikely to want to be taken alive. You've a duty of care towards the people you send. They should be in no doubt — and if in doubt — they should take him on, so I think they did the right thing.

MS He was definitely a legitimate target for capture.

GF I don't support the death penalty. I'm against it.

3 Was it legitimate to send US forces into Pakistan without telling its government?

AG Given the fact that the Pakistani authorities have been very ambiguous in the war against terror, it's pretty obvious that part of their army and certainly part of their intelligence services have been supporting the Taliban and al-Qaida. It makes it very difficult and if the Americans had told the Pakistanis that they were going to go in, they probably would have alerted Bin Laden and he might have got away. From a practical point of view you can understand what happened, but from the international law point of view, of course they should have consulted the Pakistani authorities.

TC I'm not sure that [no consultation] happened, despite what the Pakistani and US governments say.

MS I'm sure the US have carried out other operations in Pakistan before without telling the government and the Pakistan government will allow them because they receive such large US funding.

GF Let's put that under the umbrella of realpolitik.

4 If he was unarmed, as has been reported, was it wrong for him to have been killed?

AG Yes, absolutely. In the idea, if we are going to live by our principles, we should do the tough thing — the harder thing — which is to arrest and put on trial. You don't just shoot down an unarmed person — that's what terrorists do and you don't want to emulate them.

TC I don't think he was killed for the sake of killing, in the same way that [the IRA's] Danny McCann in Gibraltar was shot. With someone who has taken as many innocent lives as Bin Laden and McCann, why wouldn't they take your life when confronted? Caution must be the watchword and unless he had made absolutely clear he was unarmed and did not wish to resist, then the safe thing to do would be to neutralise a target like that and kill him.

MS For a lot of people revenge would mean death, no matter how. Bin Laden had become de-humanised; yet he had also become more than human – and the US wanted to get rid of that symbol.

GF If he posed some threat to the people who were trying to arrest him, then I could understand that. If he did not, then it was wrong to shoot him.

5 Is it acceptable that other people were killed and wounded in the operation?

AG Only if they were putting up armed resistance and it was a case of self-defence. But it looks like there were women and children involved as well. This is the use of force in response to completely unbridled atrocities by al-Qaida. It just shows you Thucydides's point, which he made over 2,000 years ago, about how our whole moral outlook and behaviour is corrupted if we fight fire with fire and respond in the way that they respond.

TC There was a 40-minute gunfight with somebody. I think they'll find they can never win. On one hand, they're coming forward with the facts as they find them out and there's criticism that they keep changing the story: well that's what happens in life. On the other hand, if they were to rock back and refuse to discuss anything whilst they fully investigate everything and then come along six months later and say, "Here's what happened", with a definite debrief from everyone, then people will say there's a cover-up, so they can't win.

MS It's not legitimate that the deaths of innocents should have been caused.

GF I don't know the full circumstances. [Maybe] if you are going to arrest someone and people fire back and you are in the middle of a war…

6 Should greater efforts have been made to take him alive?

AC Efforts should have been made to take him alive in order for a due process of law to be engaged in.

TC If the world's been looking for the geezer for nine years and 265 days and they find him, parting his hair to the left isn't an option. What you've got to be able to do is hope that you actually encounter him and be prepared when you encounter him — him being the most dangerous man in the world — to protect yourself. And I think that's the best you can hope for. Why didn't they wing him like they do in the Hollywood movies? Because that's fantasy.

MS We should have taken him alive and put him on trial. The desire to kill him is being seen as synonymous with the end of a problem. It's not; it's just another death.

GF It doesn't look like they made any effort to take him alive. They should have.

7 Would it have been preferable to capture him and put him on trial?

AG It would have been preferable to do that — not because it would have been easier and not because it would have saved other lives in future — but because in the ideal, if we were to live up to the principles of our civilisation (or the ones we claim, anyway) it would have been the right thing to do. But practicality makes very, very different demands.

TC I don't think that was a consideration. Had he been captured, I think we would have had a whole series of issues about jurisdiction and where he would have been tried and by whom. It would have been very complicated. Now that he's dead, it's much less complicated. But ultimately, there was intelligence which could have been gleaned from that. The fact of the matter is it's probably neater that he wasn't captured but the right thing probably would have been to capture him.

MS It would have been difficult to give him a fair trial. I'm not saying he wouldn't have been guilty. But two of the pillars on which the west stands are freedom and justice – this action diminishes that status.

GF He was a war criminal and should have been put on trial. People are dying in that part of the world to establish the rule of law and human rights. Going in and shooting him undermines the whole of that purpose. A lot of people are using 'justice' as a euphemism for 'revenge'. It's absolutely wrong.

I'm guessing that not one of the people in the piece above could make a living at selling widgets as well as the widget salesman I met. They don't know the lines and they don't care to learn. These people are geniuses. I have to wonder. To me they seem like parodies of people, fools pretending to be what they have no hope of ever really being. If all things are "social constructs," then people can construct any phantasies they like and call it reality. But can they sell widgets in Peoria?

Some people are so wrapped up in their own righteousness that they feel they have to make the world aware of how right they are and how wrong is the rest of everyone. There's a video here that shows one such man thinking he and his are the moral gods of the universe, that they alone know the good and the true. The moral vanity of such people is mostly only disgusting because of its childish immaturity. But sometimes such behaviour has other consequences, as we will see below the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzFd8nU4TI8&feature=player_embeddedThe man in the video has riled up a bunch of pretty ordinary folk who are sick of his bullshit. Who does this creep think he is? Who and what does he think others are? The answers are obvious. It doesn't make sense to shit on people minding their own business just because you think you can get away with it and because in some perverse way it's fun. This guy got off lucky. Another of his kind didn't.

"At an Illinois fairground, one 19 year old tiger keeper was mauled to death when he climbed on top of a cage full of circus tigers, pulled down his pants, and started to defecate. The angry tigers latched onto his ankles and ate him, piece by piece, as they pulled him through the cage."

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, was hauled off a plane in New York as he was trying to skip to France to outrun a hotel maid he tried to rape in his $3,000.00 per night room. He left in such a rush he forgot his cell phone and other things one might assume a big-shot like him would care to have with him. It turns out that this filthy rich socialist is being framed because he was on his way to becoming the president of France in an up-coming election. We should have known that the Americans were behind it all, and that this is a racist plot to put Marie le Pen in charge of Europe to attack brown people. So he tried to rape a hotel maid. It's all about socialism and the good he was doing for the world. I mean, just look at the truth below, this stunning expose from a commenter at the Guardian. This is as true as one can find. Must be. This is the voice of God. We are such fools to doubt.raquelg16 May 2011 12:41AM

Of course it was a set up. He was going to announce this or next week that he was going to run for presidency. It was a crucial time. His opponent is the current president of France. This was a careful set up, except that it is clearly so suspicious to have something like this happening so close to a major political announcement.

They paid an employee to do the job. She had been at the hotel for 3 years. This has been carefully planned for the last few months. She got a large amount, no less than $50k.

The guy is taking a shower, 3 hours from his international flight to an important meeting on Monday in Europe. He gets off the shower and there is a woman in his room. He is semi-naked. She makes sexual comments and entices him. The fool falls for it. He is well-known for his sexual drive. His opponents know this well.

They kiss, etc. When they get more into it, she asks him to stop. He figures she is not being serious since she was the one who showed up and started it. He continues kissing her and she has a fit, starts fighting him and flies from the room. In the process, she makes sure to inflict some cuts on herself. She runs to some staff and tells that a man tried to rape her. She asks employees to call the police and to be taken to the hospital. They somehow know exactly that the guy is heading to the airport. His flight was at 4:40. At the same time all newspapers are alerted of it. It spreads so fast, as planned by powerful connections that planned the set up.

This woman needs to be investigated. Her cell phone, emails, etc. There will be trace one way or another.

In the meantime, the public is already condemning the guy, and the story - true or not - hurts his chances in the presidential campaign. He was the favorite according to the polls done a couple of weeks ago.

French politics at the lowest. If they get away with it, the sky is the limit for set ups on future politicians.

In the meantime, the IMF - which is a serious institution that has nothing to do with it - gets bad publicity.

Now we know. We should never deign to think for ourselves. We do such a bad job of it. How many, really, could have penetrated the truth as decisively as Raquel G.? Not one in a billion, I suspect. Socialists. They are fucking special. Even if you protest and fight against it.